re: lidar and speed certified report

[Franco Cozzo]

Sounds like VicRoads and Macedon Ranges Council, their dodgy roads cause damage to your car, then you try to take it further, they play the blame game with each other:

Its VicRoads road.

Its Macedon Ranges Council's road.

Then if you try take it further, even though they are dead in the wrong, they'll take it to court anyway to waste time and make a point that anyone who tries will face difficulty, they suddenly played nice when a class law action was being talked about with a solicitor and a group of angry residents.

[MITCHAY]

If you go to court you may be convicted as well as having to pay penalties, court costs and incur demerit points.

If you do so much as dispute a ticket which clearly contradicts Police evidence it will be referred to court.

So that would be enough for me (disregarding having to get off work and even go to court) not to even bother especially on minor tickets.

[Revolver]

The other factor is & I could stand corrected, is the onus is on you the vehicle owner, or if not your vehicle, to provide or be provided evidence that the speedo in said vehicle is correct & accurate. Just the same when you borrow your dads car & there is a tail light out, or indicator that doesn't work. The onus is on the driver to make sure that the vehicle is in proper roadworthy order before venturing onto the road.

Now i know that in reality, no one does this. We take it all on face value. We don't check to make sure that everything works down to the last nut & bolt when we borrow a car, or ensure that the speedo is correct, but that is how we, in the eyes of the law, are meant to conduct ourselves when taking to the road.

In short:

Speedo out - No excuse.

And even if it genuinely is, Im sure even a rookie copper in his first year has at least heard that a dozen times.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Wow. $300 for court costs. What state do you live in zilo?

Victoria, it was the Fern tree Gully magistrates court.

[loony888]

As others have said, once you make any form of admission you're cooked, period.

It's amazing how easy the cops do it too, "do you have any reason for exceeding the speed limit sir?"
"no" you're done right there, and every cop that approaches a car is recording every word so regardless of how ****ed off you get afterwards that you've been fleeced your words at the time have sealed your fate.

Usually the tips given about avoiding getting booked involve knowledge you can apply at the time of the offence, most drop their pants leaving themselves no options.

I have no idea what may or may not happen if you go to court but i've ridden my high horse into court to fight the scourge of the traffic branch and had my **** handed to me, even with paid help, be aware they are devious and will try to interrogate you while waiting outside without identifying themselves as well as other devious behaviour.

I'd wear it and learn from the experience, i try and count all the times i've gotten away with much worse and it usually makes me feel better, and remember the THREE golden rules, deny, deny, deny. say nothing, and most smart phones have "voice memo" use it, and tell the copper you are, that will at least keep them relatively honest....

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by prydey

you drag out this argument every time, but i'd hazard a guess that most people who get caught speeding by a hand held device, know they have been caught with their pants down. when the cop turns on his light, or steps out in the road with his arm up, (or whatever method he/she uses to get your attention) the first thing most would do is check their speed.

the OP admitted that he knew he was speeding. he admitted he speeds every day.

if you are prepared to take the risk, be prepared to pay the price.

Yes I do drag it out every time. We have it drummed into us that radar and laser speed detection doesn't have an error in it, it's perfect, it's infallible. People don't realise that this simply can't be true of any measuring device, especially one operating in the constantly variable conditions a speed trap is, and there should be serious questions asked about true repeatable accuracy of the traps.
Many people, myself included, would have been stung by radar or got a picture in the post and just shrugged and decided that they must have been speeding, and pay up. I got one fine where I know for a damn fact I wasn't speeding ("140 meters from his position" I was actually still in my parking space and just pulling out onto the road...), contested it via a stat dec and detailed map and measurements, but still got a notice to pay up. Go to court? Why? To be told to pay up again?
People shrug and pay up because they assume that the lie they have been told that radar and laser is 100% accurate and can't make mistakes is actually the truth.

Speedo accuracy: some time back the police here in Queensland during one christmas blitz had it mentioned to them about the error allowed and the error in car speedos, and said the onus was on you to make sure your speedo is "calibrated correctly", and to "simply go and get it fixed".
The one time I asked about it at a VDO instrument shop, the guy was reluctant to give a quote as it could be a long involved job, but did say "The most I could estimate is to recommend that you should be sitting down when I told you the price though".

[prydey]

i think you are clutching at straws. its very cheap and hassle free to check a speedo via gps.

most auto workshops with a rolling road (dyno) can also check your speedo v road speed.

radar/lidar equipment is as accurate as it needs to be. most of the other equipment you always mentioned needs to be accurate to the 15th decimal place (for example). a speed detection device doesn't.

and for all the hype about 'zero tolerance', i don't know 1 single person, or read one single story, where a person has been done for 1km/h infringement.

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

If you go to court you may be convicted as well as having to pay penalties, court costs and incur demerit points.

If you do so much as dispute a ticket which clearly contradicts Police evidence it will be referred to court.

So that would be enough for me (disregarding having to get off work and even go to court) not to even bother especially on minor tickets.

Then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

You are also quite mistaken. Traffic fines are not criminal offences. They are classed as "quasi-criminal". That is why they can find you guilty without a trial. Criminal law can only find you guilty by trial.

I already stated that it is highly unusual to have to pay costs. If there is an adjournment and hence a second appearance where police produce witnesses or experts, then you will be hit if found guilty. A single appearance? Unlikely (though not unheard of - depends on how respectful you are).

That said, if you are found 'guilty' in court, it's exactly the same as if you had not gone to court in the first place and just paid the fine. Where's the risk?

There is no criminal conviction possible for traffic fines.

You incur demerit points anyway.

I encourage you to do some reading. The answers are hidden away in books and on the internet.

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

I already stated that it is highly unusual to have to pay costs. If there is an adjournment and hence a second appearance where police produce witnesses or experts, then you will be hit if found guilty. A single appearance? Unlikely (though not unheard of - depends on how respectful you are).

That said, if you are found 'guilty' in court, it's exactly the same as if you had not gone to court in the first place and just paid the fine. Where's the risk?


I encourage you to do some reading. The answers are hidden away in books and on the internet.

I must have copped the raw end of the stick then....15 years ago I contested a speeding fine in court and was found guilty....Had to pay the fine, court costs and victim of crime levy....

End of the day, if the Op wants to cough up some hard earned contesting the fine, by all means go for it...However why risk loosing more of your money contesting something you've already admitted guilt too?

(My costing you more money, I'm referring to fuel costs, and time off work + what ever other fees you incur going there to contest it)

[FGII-XR6]

if you take it to court ask for proof that the device was calibrated in accordance with the commonwealth weights and measurements act at the location and in the same conditions as it was used on the day. watch them bail out of the case

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

You are also quite mistaken. Traffic fines are not criminal offences. They are classed as "quasi-criminal". That is why they can find you guilty without a trial. Criminal law can only find you guilty by trial.

I already stated that it is highly unusual to have to pay costs. If there is an adjournment and hence a second appearance where police produce witnesses or experts, then you will be hit if found guilty. A single appearance? Unlikely (though not unheard of - depends on how respectful you are).

That said, if you are found 'guilty' in court, it's exactly the same as if you had not gone to court in the first place and just paid the fine. Where's the risk?

There is no criminal conviction possible for traffic fines.

You incur demerit points anyway.

I encourage you to do some reading. The answers are hidden away in books and on the internet.

I see absolutely no point in contesting a fine when I have been busted speeding on the chance I might get off on a technicality in how the device was configured or used when I was in fact speeding which is what a lot of people do.

LIDAR is highly accurate and I have no reason to doubt they are widely inaccurate as many believe them to be.

In fact both times I have been done it has been bang on what I believed or very close to it.

A couple of kay out makes no damn difference unless of course it would put me into a different offence bracket and even then it would have to affect me harshly for me to even bother.

It wastes my time, it wastes my money I would spend on a lawyer as I would never represent myself, it wastes the magistrates time, it wastes the various admin workers behind the scenes time and it wastes the police time.

For your information on the back of my infringement notices it states word for word. This is for the ACT by the way.

If you pay the infringement penalty within 28 days after the service date of the notice ( or such further time as the Chief Police Officer allows ) then, unless the infringement notice is withdrawn and the penalty refunded-
1. Your liability for the offence is discharged; and
2. You will not be prosecuted in court for the offence; and
3. You will not be taken to be have been convicted of the offence.

So how can I not be taken to have been convicted of the offence if I can never of been convicted of an offence as you say?

If a conviction is recorded you have a criminal record. The implications of this could mean I lose my job and affect my career even after that.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

So how can I not be taken to have been convicted of the offence if I can never of been convicted of an offence as you say?

If a conviction is recorded you have a criminal record. The implications of this could mean I lose my job and affect my career even after that.

you can be convicted of a simple traffic or parking offence that just means you are found by a court to have committed the (non criminal) offence. It in not a criminal conviction and is not recorded as a criminal conviction

[zilo]

It's a traffic conviction...after 7 years it drops off.
A criminal conviction never drops off the radar (pardon the pun )

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by zilo

It's a traffic conviction...after 7 years it drops off.

Really? so how do you explain that if I get an RTA printout of my driving history it goes back over 30 years?

[5.8]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

if you take it to court ask for proof that the device was calibrated in accordance with the commonwealth weights and measurements act at the location and in the same conditions as it was used on the day. watch them bail out of the case

au3xr6 can you just point us in the direction of this act and where we may be able to find it?

[05_ENFORCER]

Originally Posted by 5.8

au3xr6 can you just point us in the direction of this act and where we may be able to find it?

He may be referring to this commonwealth one?

National Measurements Act 1960


.

[FGII-XR6]

national measurements act 1960
National measurement regulations 1999
National measurement guidelines 1999

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by prydey

and for all the hype about 'zero tolerance', i don't know 1 single person, or read one single story, where a person has been done for 1km/h infringement.

I’ll tell you one person who’s been done for 1 km over… ME.
The mag... Ahh officer even wrote it on the ticket.

You see, when the Wyong HWP need funds for their Christmas party and back then, 1996, they saw a blue and silver truck that they know comes from Castlemaine, they will write anything on the ticket.

How much will it cost to fight?
Of course you’ll win at only 1 km over, but at what cost?

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by zilo

It's a traffic conviction...after 7 years it drops off.

I hope you’re not planning a career in the legal game?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Really? so how do you explain that if I get an RTA printout of my driving history it goes back over 30 years?

imagine if they tried to print it all out. how much paper would they need

[zilo]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Really? so how do you explain that if I get an RTA printout of my driving history it goes back over 30 years?

Your point is irrelevant but I'll take the opportunity to elaborate.


There is a distinction between a historical record and the currency of a conviction.

I don't know your history (that's your business.)



A traffic conviction has a compounding effect if still current and a subsequent conviction is meted out.

Some traffic convictions are for life ( drink driving etc).

But since the thread pertains to LIdar and speeding my comment was about that range of offence.

Speeding offences,as well as other similar offences such as driving unroadworthy car, failing to wear seat belts etc, are not able to be used as a court room argument of establishing habitual law breaking...whereas BAC offences are.

That being the point of "conviction", both literal and it's legal practicality.

RTA printouts are not a court room rap sheet, same as your insurance company collision history can't infer bad driving...nobody cares.


When you take out a new insurance policy on your car they ask you if you've had any speeding or traffic offences in the last 5 years.

There's a reason for that...it's the length of publically discoverable offences.

[FGII-XR6]

Drink driving is NOT a traffic conviction it is a criminal conviction ignorance of this is why so many otherwise law abiding citizens do it . Even with many criminal convictions they "drop off" after 10 years if you have had no additional offences in that period. it is called the "spent convictions provision" .
they actually remain there for the police and courts to see but in any employment criminal record checks they are not shown. obviously sexual , extremely violent and child related convictions are not included in the spent convictions provision.
I became aware of this as in my drinking days I was far from a good boy and in employment screenings I always had to advise them of what would show and the circumstances. for the last 3 years I have had a clean record in employment screenings

Originally Posted by zilo

Some traffic convictions are for life ( drink driving etc).

[zilo]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

Drink driving is NOT a traffic conviction it is a criminal conviction ignorance of this is why so many otherwise law abiding citizens do it . Even with many criminal convictions they "drop off" after 10 years if you have had no additional offences in that period. it is called the "spent convictions provision" . ...

Agree with you mate, there is however the difference between the state laws in Australia.
In my case I refer to Victoria and my experience there.

[kyro_02]

so my partner who has her full international license who I need to teach to drive, will be driving me around for the 28 days that I will be off the road

my brother said that there's nothing the police can do, as to her international license and experience.. they can't take it off her, but of course she can be given fines..

so whilst an experienced driver is off the road, I'll be putting my trusty inexperienced partner driving me around who I will need to teach before I lose my license in approx. 25 days(even though she isn't classed as a 'learner permit holder' I wouldn't want to give the police to much to pick on.

next thing they'll try and ping me on 'teaching' her whilst im on on a suspended license..